Well No need to hide the truth! :rolleyes:

Maybe I need to post some photos of those Poor people beggiing in streets.

But its not the right place !

these people are poor because they follow islamic ideology. it does not matter if missile is tested or not. it will have no effect.

Saudi/kuwait/uae will be much more poor if there hadnt been OIL because of there low level of skills.
Pak was a decent country before 1977.
First step for Pak is too send all refugess back and permanently close that AFghan border. there is nothing to gain from this.

Yes, Kojedub – you are a very optimistic guy as I see. In your opinion Russia will have 200-250 SS-27s in 2015??? Unfortunately, it is simply an impossible task! Up to now Russia was managed to deploy 42 SS-27 silo based missiles during NINE years (1997-2006). Now there is plan to field only SIX mobile SS-27 missiles annually. So, in such a pace Russia will possess about 98 SS-27s in 2015. Moreover mobile ICBMs are about two times more expensive than silo based ones and thus I seriously doubt this level of development can be achieved in present Russian Army financial situation apart from all Putin’s and Ivanov’s groundless blabbing about still increasing military spendings. Therefore it is incomprehensible to me why Russia doesn’t deploy MIRV-ed SS-27s at all??? That way could at least partially compensate a tiny Topol-M’s production rate…
Summary: That is deplorable, wretched and disgraceful for Russia that your country can produce one hundred ICBMs in EIGHTEEN YEARS timeframe and USSR could fulfil this task in ONE YEAR! And none of Putin’s cheats and quibbles can change this sad but real fact…

As for new S-400 air defense system it is good but we don’t know whether it could engage both stealth planes and cruise missiles at satisfactory ranges. Besides, how many S-400s would be deployed until 2015 taken into account a huge and waste Russian landmass? B-2s can choose a lot of possible fligh routes to avoid S-400’s deployment zones. Moreover after his succession Putin bragged that first S-400 regiment would be fielded in Moscov area in 2000 but nothing similiar happened so far!

u are trying to predict future based on present and past. which are irrelevant. did Soviet Union sold $25b of weopons on hard currency in 5 years? the answer is no and has $23b of contracts and much more in pipeline.
no western country can match these figures.
Were Soviet union able to build nuclear reactors on scale which russia is building now in foreign countries (China, Iran, India etc) the answer is no. soviet union has weopons which were more in quantities less in sophistication and build in industries which were widely dispered in republics. just consolidation of those industries takes time.

Russian defence industry companies are breaking ties with their Ukrainian partners following Ukraine’s moves towards Europe and NATO, a Ukrainian weekly has said. This policy is affecting cooperation in the production of gas turbines and engines for helicopters and missiles, the weekly says. However, hardest hit is the An-70 transport aircraft project which Russia agrees to continue to develop only if Ukraine joins the Single Economic Space. Ukraine could try to retaliate by refusing to provide maintenance for SS-18 missiles, the paper concluded. The following is the text of the article by Oleh Kozak entitled “Divorce, military-style: The expected large-scale disruption of ties with Russia will urge us to more actively to seek friendship in the west”, published in the Delovaya Stolitsa newspaper on 6 February; subheadings have been inserted editorially:

Clear signals have emerged this year that Russia is breaking off its defence industry cooperation with the Ukrainian military-industrial complex. Moscow is making it crystal clear that Kiev’s desire to join the European collective security system will cost it dearly. However, the Kremlin has sound arguments for breaking off the ties which have been maintained since Soviet times – the Russians do not want to go back to square one once Ukraine joins NATO, even though this is a distant prospect. Rather, Russia has firmly decided to live according to the principle: “Why put money aside for what you can produce yourself?” And, what’s more, following this principle, there are no holds barred in the Kremlin.

Russia gets tough with Ukraine

The latest warning about the possible consequences which Ukraine might suffer by joining NATO came on 29 November from Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov. He said that such a step could lead to a breaking off of cooperation between Moscow and Kiev in the military-technical sphere. We did not have long to wait for the reaction of the heads of Russian state-owned enterprises. In January, the director of the Russian Saturn-VMF programme, Leonid Ivanov, spoke about the intention of the Saturn scientific-production association to pool the potential of Russian enterprises specializing in the development and production of ship-based gas-turbine installations for the Russian navy. Sergey Ivanov openly admitted that the Russian authorities had set the task to organize production cooperation in this sphere exclusively through Russian companies. The Rybinsk engine builders have been working for some time on regulating the production of M75RU and M70FRU ship-based gas-turbine installations which, according to Ukrainian experts, have been “creamed off” power units serially produced at the Mykolayiv-based Zorya-Mashproekt scientific-technical gas-turbine construction complex. Up to now our devices have gone down a treat and been supplied to ships being built at Russian shipyards for export or for the needs of the Russian navy.

However, the Rybinsk engine builders now plan to muscle their Ukrainian competitors out of this profitable segment of the market. At the same time Saturn is a double winner, also receiving financial support from the state to the tune of about 1.5bn dollars to develop apparently new gas-turbine installations. In the future they will produce jointly 25 per cent for Saturn and 75 per cent for Zorya-Mashproekt.

Helicopter engines also hit

Another blow to Ukrainian-Russian cooperation was struck on 26 January by the managing director of the Klimov federal state company Oleksandr Vatagin. He said that serial production of parts for helicopters being built for a Russian Defence Ministry order from this year will be implemented only in Russia. According to inter-governmental agreements, previously the Zaporizhzhya-based Motor-Sich OJSC handled serial production of engines for Russian helicopters. The director admitted without batting an eyelid that the decision on this move was taken in connection with Kiev’s plans to join NATO. According to him, at the first stage – from 2006 to 2008 – production would be carried out directly at the Klimov plant in St.Petersburg, and from 2009 at the Chernyshev plant in Moscow.

This came as no surprise to the Ukrainian company. Even before this statement was made the Russians had begun to openly squeeze out Motor-Sych from supplies of helicopter engines. Ten Mi-35 helicopters sent to the Czech Republic at the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 had already been equipped with TV3-117 engines assembled at St.Petersburg’s Klimov plant.

In the future the Russians might also turn down cooperation in the production of VK-2500 engines turbo-shaft engines for Mi-171 helicopters. At the same time, in implementing these plans, they are not reckoning with costs. Some 90 per cent of the engine, or rather the gas generator which forms the basis of the power unit, is manufactured at Zaporizhzhya. In St.Petersburg it is fitted with parts manufactured in Saratov, so as a whole the Klimov plant’s share in the production of the VK-2500 aircraft engine is 2-3 per cent. Our experts estimate that hundreds of millions of dollars will be required to organize serial production of these engines.

Threat to missile engines

It is a similar situation with the engines for the RD-36 long-range cruise missile, which are also being serially produced at Motor-Sich. Recently a Russian developer of the RD-36 said he was willing to produce them serially.

The AI-222 aircraft engine, which is being produced at Motor-Sich for Yak-130 fighter training aircraft being manufactured at the Sokol aviation plant in Nizhniy Novgorod, may also find itself under threat of being squeezed out of the Russian market. The Russian AL-55, development of which will cost approximately 100m dollars, may become a competitor for the Ukrainian engine.

Unlike the efficient and resourceful Russians, our manufacturers have preferred to ignore the possible risks of our Russian partner refusing their services, and so have done nothing to avoid unpleasant consequences.

Moreover, at the Ukrainian plant they are still looking towards Russia, stubbornly believing there is no alternative to cooperating with it. “The company will take steps to stay in the Russian market since there is no-one in Ukraine to market our product. Moscow spoke a long time ago about its intention to produce parts for helicopter engines, but has decided not to do anything until the administration has made moves towards Euro-Atlantic integration. In taking this decision, the state should have thought about the support of manufacturers in the military-industrial complex, as they are doing in Russia. But that is not happening here,” the deputy managing director for marketing of Motor-Sich, Volodymyr Shirkov, told Delovaya Stolitsa.

Until now the Kiev-based Artem state-owned holding company has had a monopoly on the Russian market of air-to-air missiles. The R-27 missiles which were designed in Russia have been produced in Kiev and supplied as part of the Russian MiG-29s, Su-27s and Su-30s for export. New R-77-type missile units (with an active homing head), which will be produced in Russia, are now being developed in the Russian Federation.

Russia is producing its own helmet-mounted target indication systems for the MiG-29 and the Su-30. Until now this system – the Sura – has been produced at the Kiev Arsenal plant and the Arsenal central design bureau. Delovaya Stolitsa was told that the Ukrainians are also being squeezed out of other segments of the missile market. “If we are talking about extending the service life of the heavy SS-20 and SS-18 Satan missiles, which we have developed, then they will continue to give service but without our guaranteed supervision. At the moment, representatives of the plant and the design bureau are permanently involved in carrying out the designer’s guaranteed supervision in the Russian Federation. Russia’s strategic missile troops are ordering this work for us, and this is good money,” the general designer of the Pivdenne design bureau, Stanislav Konyukhov, told Delovaya Stolitsa.

Russia rejects An-70 project

But, perhaps, the most vivid example of Russia’s reluctance to cooperate with Ukraine is the project of the An-70 short take-off and landing aircraft. There exists a Ukrainian-Russian intergovernmental agreement on its development and the purchase of 165 An-70s for the needs of the Russian air force and 64 for the Ukrainian air force. Russia’s debt to our country for implementing this project is 48m dollars. However, instead of clearing the debt and allocating the necessary funds for the construction of new engines to continue tests and bring them to a rapid conclusion, Russian is putting forward more and more demands. The commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, Vladimir Mikhaylov, is constantly talking about new flaws in the plane. A source at the Ukrainian Industrial Policy Ministry admitted that there were big political reasons behind this. They are saying: “Enter the Single Economic Space, the Customs Union and the [CIS] Collective Defence Treaty and everything will be OK with the An-70 project.”

Moscow is deliberately breaking off cooperation with Kiev and the Ukrainian military-industrial complex. Our manufacturer – the Antonov aviation plant – was not even invited to a tender held by the Russian air force last year for the development of a light military-transport aircraft. Unlike in Ukraine, Russia has no design bureau to develop military-transport planes. At the same time, Antonov is the acknowledged developer of this class of aircraft in the world.

Ukraine will lose a great deal if cooperation ties in the military-industrial complex are broken off. True, these losses will not be felt straightaway. The Russians will probably not be able to completely master the production of gas-turbine devices within less than five years.

Furthermore, before they start going into serial production they will have to run them in on Russian vessels, because they will not risk mounting untested devices on the ships they are exporting. The situation with helicopter and aircraft engines will develop in roughly the same way.

Ukraine may retaliate

For its part, Ukraine may inflict slight, but very tangible damage to Russia’s nuclear shield by refusing to offer its services in extending the operational life and carrying out of maintenance work on SS-18 inter-continental ballistic missiles. This means that Russia will have to take these weapons out of use not in 2011, as planned, but much earlier. In return our country may begin closer cooperation with the US in the sphere of America’s anti-missile defence. Ukrainian missile designers have plenty to propose to American specialists who are looking for counter-weapons against some of the deadliest missiles in the world.

The early warning centres in Sevastopol and Mukachevo, which are part of the missile attack early-warning station, may find another use (in the interests of the US or NATO). In other words, Russia is now simply pushing us into a more dynamic reorientation of our defence industry, developing our own armaments and military technology and purchasing non-Russian weapons.

Source: Delovaya Stolitsa, Kiev,

@soyuz 1917

Let me be the Devils Advocate :diablo:

I am aware of the OTH radars (Meter & Decameter ) capability to detect Low RCS Targets as shaping and RAM dosent work , But I am sure so are the Americans , They too have those OTH Radars and could have detected their stealth aircraft .

Legend has it that the Australian JINDALE OTH system was able to detect the B-2 which pissed off the Americans , they took part of the system to US and tested the B-2 against there.

It seems they have developed some Active Stealth ( Radar Cancellation ) techniques to deal with those long wave.

The Americans would have taken those things in their calculation as far as dealing will across the board Radio Waves are concerned , That would be the very basic of thing one would do any way.

The fact that you design a Billion Dollar Aircraft to penetrate the Soviet defense and Drop the Nuclear weapons such things would have been taken well care of.

every nation makes calculation about itself and potential enemy. but if u look a little harder at coldwar than u will know which side really won.

May be the Soviet or Russian would have developed some unconventional way of detecting such aircraft that we might not known.

they have building new generation of radars so there will be some benefit othewise why invest money in it.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/27/newradar.shtml
“Technologies are becoming more sophisticated. So are radars,” Ivanov was quoted by Interfax as saying. “Whereas large stations were built previously, modern technology allows us to make such projects less costly

But from what it seems if a sudden suprise attack were to be planned the B-2 might very well be capable of penetrating the Russian Air Defense Network with little or no warning.
Well In a pitch dark night which B-2 would prefer to operate in , Multiple B-2 penetrating from different direction might well do some high altitude Precision Bombing attack their targets( they could do even a nuclear one for which they were initally designed ) and most likely will come back , before some one makes sense as to what has happened or a counter retaliation can be made.

there defence minister is openly said that are building next generation of weopons that no one has it.
there is no such thing as discreet nuclear attack to eliminate every thing. real nuclear capability is every nation secret and is underground and dispersed. and russia has world largest. even that iranian on is so hard to crack.

The B-2 prefers to operate alone as any escort might endanger its discretion , It might refuell at some places far from Russian Border , But the internal fuel of B-2 gives its phenomenal range and just max 2 refuell will require for its mission.

it is like saying that Flanker has 3000 km range with full load and full speed.

The key here is sudden attack , without warning and the stealth capability of B-2 will do the rest.

but if sudden attack has limited damage and who will bear the response. what if russia strikes Middleast/Japan/singapore in response. which are much nearer to strike. It is west that is depended on Asia and they have defend it before it even think about defeating russia.

So I come back to the same question , How does one deal with the super stealth B-2 if she resorts to sudden and suprise attacks.

it depends on size of country. large countries can absorb the first strike. and they will not have time for second strike.

No matter which product you are dealing with, vendors don’t provide all the requisite information even after a confidentiality contact is signed during the initial stages.

For instance, if an application that supports 2 concurrent users is souped up by the vendor to increase say 4 users, how does that imply anything other than the vendor’s intentions of landing the contract? Even for small projects (relatively speaking) that cost only a few million euros, requirements are modified several times. I doubt why this would not be the case here.

Last but not least, only indication of the requirement of MRCA has been a rumor that it needs to be a 20 tonne class fighter. What other details are you privy to (besides the stature stipulated requirements of offset etc)?

i dont why u put irrelevant examples. or do u believe that 14 ton aircraft can be souped up to 20 tons or 30 ton aircraft reduced to 20 tons for india.
India hasnt decided on what they wants that why so wide variety of aircrafts have joined the competition. Its much more than simple software requirement changes.

Other than IAF/GoI who are initiating the whole procurement as opposed to members in some discussion fora.

IAF/GOI donot know what they want. they will only come to know when final bids are submitted by the manufactures and they are extensively evaluated in all dimensions than they will decide what they want. how can they know what the vendors have in mind for them.

And the source of that article, a JDW report from February 2, 2006 didn’t mention anything about the radar 😮 …

The upgrade price is pretty pretty high, let’s wait how would it outcome.

Seems to be a good year for RSK MiG 😉

I dont think upgrade price is high. by today price even BISON upgrade will cost more than $10m per plane. and here we are talking about two new engines with fadec, fully glass cockpit and multi vendor avionics not to mention structural upgrades for payload and range.
and is SMT a FBW aircraft compared to basic Fulcurm. this is a lot improvement if every thing is carried out.

New solution. The US makes a public agreement with Iran. Iran gets to pursue whatever nuclear ambitions it may have. US inspectors are allowed into Iranian uranium enrichment facilities to identify Iranian uranium. Iran agrees not to target any US presence in the Middle East, and guarantee free traffic of the world’s oil through the Persian Gulf. In return, US-Iranian relations are normalized. The US agrees not to act against Iran unless either A) the US or B) the free traffic of oil is threatened. Barring that, Iran has free reign, within reason. While we’d clearly be irritated if they nuked London, if they desired to go at it with Israel we’d move into the Gulf to protect the oil supplies. Most pre-existing mutual defense relationships would still apply, with one notable exception. And if Iranian nuclear material is ever used against either the US or a noted ally, we’d retaliate in kind (hence the reason for sampling and testing Iranian uranium).

That way, as a world superpower, we ensure the safety of the world’s energy supplies coming from the Middle East. We don’t have to deal with Iran militarily. We have the information necessary to determine if Iranian fissile material is used against us. And we can, if we choose, defend nations which are allied with us if Iran does get belligerant. Everybody wins, nobody goes to war over an asinine issue in the first place, and maybe we end up opening McDonald’s and KFC in Tehran in a few years.

i think US-Iran can easily be improved but the problem is the allied nation. some of these countries are under US nuke umbrella but the rest of the world is very irritated with them and that is the whole issue.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060206/43377957.html

FAZ: Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that strategic partnership between Germany and Russia has to prove itself on the Iranian issue as well.

Sergei Ivanov: We have proved it during the recent voting. But the opinion that Russia plays a decisive part is not quite true. We have good relations with Iran, but we cannot rely on Iran to follow all Moscow’s recommendations.

FAZ: U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism.

Sergei Ivanov: This is debatable. In any case, the terrorist attacks against America on September 11, 2001, were not carried out by Iranians. Iran does not support terrorist activities in Chechnya, unlike other Middle East countries.